Blog Archives

Well, it has been a long time since I have posted on my blog, and God willing, I will be able to post more frequently. Since I have been away from the keyboard, I have done a lot of reading, listening, and learning. Recently, I just finished R.C. Sproul’s book, The Truth of the Cross (As I am writing this it is FREE for Kindle). I really enjoyed the book because it highlighted some truths about Jesus death that I needed to know. It also was great because it cost me nothing to read it! Anyway, something Dr. Sproul wrote struck me profoundly when he after he discussed our need to be perfect in order to be in the presence of a holy God:

We try to get around the helplessness of this situation in modern culture by declaring that everybody deserves a second chance. -(Kindle Locations 226-229). Kindle Edition.

Today, many churches are talking about how God is the God of second chances. You may be asking, “What’s wrong with that?” And that is a great question. The problem with a second chance is that for corrupt and sinful human beings a second chance would be futile. It is pointless for a holy and righteous God who knows everything to give fallen people a second chance because they will inevitably mess up again. A second chance doesn’t save anyone, it only provides another opportunity to fail. If the standard for being with God forever is perfection, a second chance from God doesn’t equal perfection. Sproul follows his statement with these words:

My response is, “Who says so?” Does justice require that everybody get a second chance? A second chance is grace. It is mercy. Grace and mercy are never deserved. So it is nonsense to say that everyone deserves a second chance. But even if that nonsensical, hypothetical condition were true, what good would it do us? How long ago did we use up our second chance?

Sproul highlights the problem with second chances. We, sinful human beings, will eventually blow that second chance. A second chance from a holy God may be gracious and merciful, but it makes no sense because God also knows that we will trade that second chance in for rebellion.

What you and I need is not a second chance, but a savior. A savior that is perfect, holy, and upright in the sight of the Father. We need a savior that can take our place and stand on our behalf before the Creator of heaven and earth. Thankfully, there is a Savior. His name is Jesus and he is the only one that can save.

For our sake he made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. -2 Corinthians 5:21, ESV

The only way to God is righteousness. You don’t need a second chance, you need Jesus!

I have heard a lot of people say that gay people can’t change. Well, Rosaria Champagne Butterfield’s testimony refutes that view. Here is her story found on the Authors on the Line podcast (23 minutes):

Recently, I was directed to an article entitled, “So What if Abortion Ends Life?” by Mary Elizabeth Williams. Williams is a writer for Salon.com, and her words are utterly disgusting. In her article this is what she has to say:

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers.

The true reality of Liberalism and post-modernism is this: “All life is not equal”. Not only is there irony in the fact that we just celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but Liberals are always saying something like, “We fight for every person.” The truth is this, Liberals lie when they say all people are equal. If you thought that quote was disturbing, just wait. The next sentences say this:

Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

Here, we see the natural progression of the Humanist/Liberal mindset. Since the baby is dependent on the mother to survive, that unborn child’s rights are not equal to the mother’s. This raises a plethora of questions that the pro-choice advocate must answer. Here they are:

#1 Since the mother is autonomous and the baby isn’t, what about the newborn? The newborn is dependent on the mother for years before he/she could ever be autonomous. Does that mean the newborn doesn’t have equal rights with the mother? Is the newborn’s right to life non-existent, because the baby would die if left alone?

#2 What about the developmentally disabled man who could not live without a person to help him? Does he not have the right to life, because he is not autonomous?

#3 What about the elderly woman who cannot live without an oxygen tank? Does she not have the right to life because she can’t breathe without that tank?

Most pro-choice advocates would answer those questions with a resounding NO, but the problem is that they have absolutely no grounds for their answer. If you truly believe that autonomy is the threshold for equal rights, you must be willing to kill millions of other people living outside of the womb. If not, your arguments are emotional and illogical. Now, you might be thinking, “This article couldn’t get any more nutty,” but you would be wrong. Later, Williams says:

My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to.

And in the same paragraph Williams ends her article with this:

In an Op-Ed on “Why I’m Pro-Choice” in the Michigan Daily this week, Emma Maniere stated, quite perfectly, that “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

This last paragraph is the culmination of the Liberal mindset. In Williams mind the life of the mother is more important than the life of the unborn, at all times, and it doesn’t matter if human life starts at conception. Human life can exist without the right to that life. According to Williams, if the mother doesn’t want the child, she can have an abortion because her rights trump the unborn’s.

Many may say, “Well, maybe she was talking about a life threatening situation.” The problem is that Williams never brings this point up. Even if this is the case, abortions are hardly ever needed to save a mother’s life. I see Williams saying that the woman’s choice trumps the babies rights to life, because she is autonomous. Then Williams ends with these words, “A life worth sacrificing”.

Apparently, these little lives are worth sacrificing, because the pregnancy is unwanted. I guess the baby is worth sacrificing because carrying him/her to term would cause too much trouble. If this is true, then I suppose it’s alright for a person to sacrifice their parents when they need to have 24/7 care. If you hold the pro-choice view, you have no choice but to advocate for the sacrificing of the developmentally disabled person. The Liberal argument for abortion depends on the lack of autonomy. If this is true then the Liberal must deal with other people who are not autonomous. If they are consistent then they are utterly disgusting. If they are not consistent then their argument can be thrown out.

Allow me to end with this.

I know a God that came in flesh. His name was Jesus of Nazareth, and he gave himself as a sacrifice for sins. It doesn’t matter if you have only lied once or have aborted your unborn baby, Christ can cover all sin. Christ’s self-sacrifice is sufficient to forgive you. I pray that God opens your heart to understand the greatest sacrifice humanity has ever seen.